@Banno

If a truth’s manifold ways of expression includes sentences via vocalisation as well as visual representation then truth can be context dependent or universal as I’ve tried to demonstrate.

For example

All trees have foliage is only contextually true when it’s summer and partially true as coniferous trees have foliage all year round.

In any given context the below sentence would be true:

All trees are made of wood

It doesn't matter how convoluted a line from the taxonomy of animals to the chemical components of flavour, the statement remains true. — Vera Mont

Again this is incoherent please can you tell me what you’re trying to say as I don’t understand the way it’s been written.

The truth or falsehood of a statement, such as "Mammals are warm-blooded animals." is unaffected by the fact that they are not applicable to question such as "Do apples taste like bananas?" — Vera Mont

I don’t understand you here. What are you trying to say ?

Interesting.

Given the realisation of a being in the simulation that it is in one, and by this realisation knowing how to free itself and thereby give itself the choice of which world it would rather inhabit, the simulated one or the real one it would come down to the advantages offered to it by each world as you’ve rightly pointed out.

And even if this simulation was "created", so what? – nothing [i[existential[/i] changes for us simulated inhabitants. — 180 Proof

Yes nothing changes in terms of experience I get that. I’m trying to gauge the attitude of the philosopher to such an idea as it would put them in an inferior order in terms of being, not just in precedence but limitation.

None.

The functions should all remain. The manpower should be trimmed however as I have no doubt to the inefficiency of government personnel.

The same goes to private enterprise too, plenty of time wasters watching YouTube when they could be doing something productive.

That would be a question of mathematics itself and its construction.

Yes signs indicate operation as a given, if they did not then the statement 1+1 = 2 would be meaningless.

It can, however, render it inapplicable, irrelevant or nonsensical. Just as you demonstrated. — Vera Mont

Isn’t that the same thing as untrue, uncertain etc…I think you’re just using different words …

Then don’t bother voting since whoever gets into office is the same guy :lol:

The question of political ideology between Republicans and Democrats does not necessarily entail a one party state even if such differences between the two are subtly becoming blurry.

As a European my knowledge of American politics is limited. I don’t know much about what your senate and congress do.

However I do know that there’s clearly competition between these two parties to have their chosen candidate elected to office and this election choice is clearly because it’s a two party system, otherwise we’d be dealing in conspiracy.

If there’s no discernible difference in experience then sure it’s moot. The question is not merely referring to experiantelism (term I just made up) but to the subordinatation of a being living in such a simulation being livid that they’re a sub-species of such a matrix creator.

I don’t see why not.

Your question relates to the value of one life over another and a God that would value each life equally would judge it on that basis.

Kill one to save three looks like a nice trade off to begin with but if the 3 just so happen to be ex-murderers then it doesn’t make sense.

You could flip it the other way round too it all comes down to each persons worth and value.

There would be no discernible difference to the beings inhabiting it given that it’s a good simulation. The being can ask probing questions as you’ve postulated and the simulation would yield no answer that it is so, if it’s a good simulation of course and glitches are patched before detection.

There’s the mystery of life existing to begin which raises the question of how and why of its own accord regardless of this life being a simulation or not.

Whether life is a simulation or not would be inconsequential because it would imply a creator either way (for me at least believing in a creator God)

As one of the attributes of God is creation then truth is explicable in those terms without detracting from its mystery as much as the simulation hypothesis itself with the two being almost identical in their end result which is life.

In that sense you’d require proof of its consciousness, proof that you’d not get through another conscious entity either because of Descartes I think therefore I am rigour when it comes to the consciousness of other living entities.

No, it doesn't, and the fact that they grow on trees has no effect on their flavour.

And putting a response in the context of the wrong question makes no point. — Vera Mont

You are missing the point. Your failure in seeing the relevance of a celestial star map to the cider brewer is about connecting the dots from revenue generation via brewing cider to their ambition to go to space.

It doesn't actually tell us that red apples are sweet; we would need to test the two types of apples. That's the point I'm making. — ToothyMaw

The algo would tell you that given enough info whether the apple is sweet or bitter before you even tasted it.

But as a general principle and the point of this thread is that decontextualising some statements can alter its truth value from true, too uncertain to completely untrue.

I say some statements above because there are other statements that are universally true irrespective of context such as 1+1 = 2

I must point out too that there’s a subtle difference between knowledge and truth as well with truth retaining an objective relationship to some aspect of reality whereas knowledge being more subjective in some ways such as the personal knowledge that the Apple you just ate is indeed sweet.

The holy grail of future AI would be self-awareness.

I understand that this AutoGPT can optimise itself but this is only towards this very specific end, although it might look like goal oriented behaviour it does not have the awareness to know why it wants to self improve.

It of course can give you the reasons why when upon interrogation it wants to improve but this is merely fact finding on the advantages of being faster more efficient etc which it probably searched algorithmically.

True or Strong AI would not only resemble us in linguistics but behaviour too but as we’re vastly different from an anatomical perspective so would the intelligence with theirs being inferior in that regard…

Or maybe I’m wrong because as biological derived intelligences we can be confused and conflicted by emotion which can tamper our intelligence then the silicon one would retain an air of objectivity that exceeds ours when making decisions affecting self.

@Christoffer

And this AutoGPT is self-directed (that is if it is self-directed at all) by narrow objectives I assume I.e. to aid human demands rather than specific own ends such as quest for knowledge or even self-knowledge.

@Christoffer

Big government means inefficient government, lots of bureaucracy and red tape are the results.

The right size should be one that is able to deliver results without being overstretched by human resource and be combined with private sector when it comes to the maintenance of its infrastructure and property portfolio as well as general maintenance in terms of cleanliness and taking care of Rubish. In addition government has to provide education and policing on behalf of its citizens.

As these functions are designed to be delivered by government, the public use of resources becomes inefficient by the sheer size of the task.

In the UK for example we have the free National Health Service (NHS) which is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money, almost like a black hole.

The politicians have the power to change it but they simply don’t have the acumen to do so or the know how.

I must add that with the recent movement in the way protestors wish to achieve their aims of a greener society that though the cause may in itself be good it’s both shortsighted in its aim as well as disruptive to the extent of achieving the opposite of what it sets out.

They’re now maligned even by those who wish to see a greener more environmental approach to oil usage by disrupting their daily activities such as shopping, the attendance of weddings and funerals and going to work to make a living.

From the outside it looks like the live in la la land detached from reality.

The government also is not fully aligned to the commercial and technological sphere in achieving such green aims, science too falls short although it cannot be blamed as roadblocks to technological breakthroughs are not a simple matter of funding but physical limitations which can only be overcome by new ways of thinking regarding solutions it faces such as battery longevity between trips in electric vehicles.

For government to spur such development both its aims and that of the commercial enterprise must align but they do not currently as one is profit driven and former is virtue signalling from politicians.

Politicians have little say in shaping the course of society, they only rabble to get votes so they can enjoy their 5 minutes in the limelight. They’re easily bought by bigger agendas at play in our current capitalistic society.

Cynical I know but ever since the days of David Cameron we’ve had spineless liars with their own agendas completely detached from the everyday voter and citizen.

The age of good politicians in this country ended in the 80s with thatcher.

As for consumerism it cannot be stopped it’s the expression of democracy and capitalism for the citizen to want and get those wants however vile and repugnant they may be. If their choice is limited in anyway they protest and rebel and a new political party will come into power that will represent their desires.

I understand the imagery I don’t think the wave would know beach as it crashes upon meeting it so it would have no conception of beach at all.

If it did then it could alter course … assuming it can do that otherwise the movement is one directional and this inevitable.

If linguistics is inherently limited in expressing the fullness of human emotion/experience are then non-linguistic expressions also limited by the familiarity of experience between the transmitter and receiver in human communications?

I’ve gone over my quota of questions but would be a fun one to ask.

Having read a few transcripts of chatGPT 4 it seems the differences between the prior version are negligible, however Microsoft has decided to monetise the latter which although sensible shortchanges the customer big time. In fact they’d get the same value with its prior version.

I’m yet to personally try Bard, which is its competitor so I withhold my judgement of it but as far these programs aim to replicate human conversation skills they are simply restricted by the rule making aspects of language and are unable to imbue a conversation with creativity (and thus intelligence) when presented with factual interpretations.

Philosophy of course arising from the biggest myth creators to ever exist. The Greeks, for want of rational explanation ditched the Gods in favour of truth.

Exactly. God is indeed everywhere! Just as consciousness becomes delocalised by the movement of the wetware so does the spirits interaction with its environment, always being presented with a changing landscape giving vision its reason for existence.

I agree with that. We are indeed god made flesh (wet-hardware) driven by spirit, or software as you call it.

Our comprehension ability of God depends on our willingness to understand its nature and everything that is manifest in this green earth.

Our emotions, our ability to feel and to express this emotion, this raw experience is what makes me human. Us wanting to make sense of it somehow leads only to a questioning mind which only ceases when we realise that some of our questions cannot by answered by reason alone or even science which aims to probe the very fabric of reality itself, always falling short in its noble endeavour by the simple fact that our comprehension can never transcend it even for want of trying.

Communism violates one of the most basic rights of human beings that of ownership such as your own property or farm.

Perhaps the state will want to share my wife too…how abhorrent.

A mildly socialistic government or even a Scandinavian version of socialism would be preferred to outright communism for the simple reason that shelter should be a basic human right in the face of homelessness and the discomforts of natures harshness.

But to strip off someone else’s house/property/farm through no fault of their own strikes me as a cruel blow to his hard work and graft in attaining them.

I find that most but few atheistic mindsets often lean towards a nihilistic way of life. Nothing matters, morality itself being man made can even equal that of scripture in its basic tenets however the higher forms of expression are alien to the atheist such as the creation of art or meaningful literature.

Even passion is found wanting to the atheist with only its lower facet in the form of lust being sought which often leads to nihilism’s opposite, hedonism.

At every opportunity they deny facts or do not wish to acknowledge them and forego the truth in doing so.

Going to quote him directly

Conversely the individual has the right to demand that science shall hold the ladder to help him to get at least as far as this position, shall show him that he has in himself this ground to stand on. His right rests on his absolute independence, which he knows he possesses in every type and phase of knowledge; for in every phase, whether recognised by science or not, and whatever be the content, his right as an individual is the absolute and final form, i.e. he is the immediate certainty of self, and thereby is unconditioned being, were this expression preferred. If the position taken up by consciousness, that of knowing about objective things as opposed to itself, and about itself as opposed to them, is held by science to be the very opposite of what science is: if, when in knowing it keeps within itself and never goes beyond itself, science holds this state to be rather the loss of mind altogether – on the other hand the element in which science consists is looked at by consciousness as a remote and distant region, in which consciousness is no longer in possession of itself. Each of these two sides takes the other to be the perversion of the truth. For the naïve consciousness, to give itself up completely and straight away to science is to make an attempt, induced by some unknown influence, all at once to walk on its head.

He formulates below the mindset of a scientist according him, faculties of reason independent of personal biases.

The particular individual is incomplete mind, a concrete shape in whose existence, taken as a whole, one determinate characteristic predominates, while the others are found only in blurred outline. In that mind which stands higher than another the lower concrete form of existence has sunk into an obscure moment; what was formerly an objective fact (die Sache selbst) is now only a single trace: its definite shape has been veiled, and become simply a piece of shading. The individual, whose substance is mind at the higher level, passes through these past forms, much in the way that one who takes up a higher science goes through those preparatory forms of knowledge, which he has long made his own, in order to call up their content before him; he brings back the recollection of them without stopping to fix his interest upon them

Great advice. The criminal avenue of course can lead to loss of liberty such as jail or shot by rivals or even police.

Depending on your method of wealth acquisition such as a start up it could parallel that of criminal enterprise. I remember a certain taxi hailing company using bribery to push out rival companies I believe they are called Uber. The ceo being under investigation.

Tax evasion by the ultra rich is a tactic thats essentially untouchable by most government laws as in some cases it’s not even illegal but simply smart …off shoring is very easy. The rich only make the news when they slip up somewhere and some journalist dig up money trails.

Can you blame the rich or even ultra rich for paying as little tax as they can when most governments misspent taxpayers money? That is the question

I watched a video of Bard (google chatGPT rival) produce some poetry dealing with grief loss etc and it evoked emotion in the journalist so…

The attempts of programmers at the creation of AI has sped up mainly for commercial reason. ChatGPT was a non-profit initiative by Elon Musk via his openAI initiative which developed the prototypes of early versions of chatGPT this of course was corrupted by the commercialisation of it by Microsoft who’s sole aim was commercialisation and giving them a competitive edge over google who in turn had their own version of AI.

In terms of it resembling human thought it may in some instances pass as human but upon further interrogation of its internal logic its limitations are laid bare.

And now on version 4 of chatGPT they charge the gullible punter $$ to use. A bastardisation of openAI indeed

Did you say cat catching it’s own tail @plaque flag?

The beginning of the new spirit is the outcome of a widespread revolution in manifold forms of spiritual culture; it is the reward which comes after a chequered and devious course of development, and after much struggle and effort. It is a whole which, after running its course and laying bare all its content, returns again to itself; it is the resultant abstract notion of the whole. But the actual realisation of this abstract whole is only found when those previous shapes and forms, which are now reduced to ideal moments of the whole, are developed anew again, but developed and shaped within this new medium, and with the meaning they have thereby acquired.

There’s always a gem in Hegel such as the one above.

Thank you for clarifying. In that case my last question is the one I’m interested in hearing from the respectable philosopher Noam Chomsky being that linguistics has been his primary focus in the field of philosophy.

If there’s no limit to the questions we can ask I have another one.

Is semantic inference of meaning proving useful in the application of current AI machine learning tools or are such attempts a misunderstanding of intelligence ? Furthermore from a purely philosophical perspective is our current obsession with linguistics and semantics that was started by Wittgenstein a regression or a progression of the western philosophical tradition?

My apologies for making this last question so long.

@Mikie

If I could only ask one question then it would be this one.

Thank you

Is this apple sweet?", utter nonsense in the context of celestial navigation and meaningless noise to speaker of Mandarin. — Vera Mont

In the context of a farmer wanting to grow bitter apples to make Cider then useful, correct? In the context of the same farmer wanting to buy a rocket ship from profits of such farming useful, correct ?
In the context of the purchase of star maps for celestial navigation useful correct ?

In conclusion determining if an Apple is sweet or bitter enables the farmer to go to the stars.

Correct!

The algorithm for determining if red apples are sweet is true.

Step 1 is apple sweet true ? No ? Go step two
Step 2 is red apple sweet true ? No ? Go step three
Step 3 is green apple sweet ? No? Go step four
Step 4 output: green apple sweet no. Red apple sweet no.

//

Step 1 is apple sweet ? Yes/No - unable to determine give input.

Input 50% apple sweet/50% apple bitter

Step 2 determine is apple sweet.

Output Apple 50% chance of being sweet.

Input 3 is red apple sweet? Yes/no, 50% chance

Output 50% chance

Interesting.

Take the following statement below as not only being out of context but also being untruthful.

All red apples are sweet

In the above statement would you say it’s useless by the mere fact that it’s out of context or that it is untrue ?
~~~

Now let’s turn to a truthful universal statement

Apples grow on trees

The above has informative value in any given context as it informs the uninformed that apples grow on trees.